Writ Petition No. 1076 of 2004. Case: Managing Director, M.P. State Marketing Federation and Ors. Vs Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors.. Chhattisgarh High Court

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 1076 of 2004
CounselFor Appellant: Abhishek Sinha, Adv. and For Respondents: Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Advocate General
JudgesSanjay K. Agrawal, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 227; East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - Sections 21(4), 41(1), 42; Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 64, 66, 66(1), 66(3), 78, 78(1)(a)
Judgement DateApril 09, 2015
CourtChhattisgarh High Court

Judgment:

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

  1. The respondent No. 2/tenderer in terms of agreement entered into between the parties, raised a dispute before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Section 64 of MP/CG Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act, 1960).

  2. The registrar, Co-operative Societies, in exercise of power conferred under Section 66(3) of the Act, 1960, transferred the said dispute to Assistant Registrar, Sahakari Sansthayen, Rajnandgaon for disposal in accordance with law. Subsequently, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society was posted on the said post and ultimately the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society passed the order on 09.03.2000 dismissing the claim of respondent No. 2 herein and allowing the counter claim of petitioners herein.

  3. Being aggrieved against the said order, the respondent No. 2 assailed the same before the Registrar, Co-operative Society under the provisions of Section 78 of the Act, 1960. The said appeal was allowed by the Registrar by order dated 09.04.2003. Questioning the legality and validity of said order dated 09.04.2003 passed by the Registrar, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India merely contending that Registrar having delegated its power under Section 66(3) of the Act, 1960, to the Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar, could not have heard the appeal against the order of Deputy Registrar as the Deputy Registrar has passed the order being delegatee/nominee of the Registrar and as such, the appeal itself was not maintainable before the Registrar and as such impugned order deserves to be quashed being without jurisdiction & without authority of law.

  4. On rule being issued, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 herein stating inter alia that against the order of Registrar, further remedy of Second Appeal was available to the petitioners, and as such, the writ petition, as framed and filed is not maintainable in law and the same deserves to be dismissed as the petitioners are having efficacious statutory alternative remedy of filing Second Appeal before the appellate forum.

  5. Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that against the order of Deputy Registrar being nominee or delegatee of Registrar under Section 66(3) of the Act, 1960, the appeal was not maintainable in law and as such the exercise of appellate power by the Registrar was clearly unsustainable and bad in law and the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Arguing further, he would submit that writ petition was entertained on 27.04.2004 and as such the order itself is without jurisdiction and without authority of law, writ petition should not be dismissed at this stage on the ground of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT